they are always adjectives; except, perhaps, when they denote languages? There may possibly be some real authority from usage, for calling a native of China a Chinese,--of Japan a Japanese,--&c.; as there is also for the regular plurals, Chineses, Japaneses, &c.; but is it, in either case, good and sufficient authority? The like forms, it is acknowledged, are, on some occasions, mere adjectives; and, in modern usage, we do not find these words inflected, as they were formerly. Examples: "The Chinese are by no means a cleanly people, either in person or dress."--Balbi's Geog., p. 415. "The Japanese excel in working in copper, iron, and steel."--Ib., p. 419. "The Portuguese are of the same origin with the Spaniards."--Ib., p. 272. "By whom the undaunted Tyrolese are led."--Wordsworth's Poems, p. 122. Again: "Amongst the Portugueses, 'tis so much a Fashion, and Emulation, amongst their Children, to learn to Read, and Write, that they cannot hinder them from it."--Locke, on Education, p. 271. "The Malteses do so, who harden the Bodies of their Children, and reconcile them to the Heat, by making them go stark Naked."--Idem, Edition of 1669, p. 5. "CHINESE, n. s. Used elliptically for the language and people of China: plural, Chineses. Sir T. Herbert."--Abridgement of Todd's Johnson. This is certainly absurd. For if Chinese is used elliptically for the people of China, it is an adjective, and does not form the plural, Chineses: which is precisely what I urge concerning the whole class. These plural forms ought not to be imitated. Horne Tooke quotes some friend of his, as saying, "No, I will never descend with him beneath even a Japanese: and I remember what Voltaire remarks of that country."--Diversions of Purley, i, 187. In this case, he ought, unquestionably, to have said--"beneath even a native of Japan;" because, whether Japanese be a noun or not, it is absurd to call a Japanese, "that country." Butler, in his Hudibras, somewhere uses the word Chineses; and it was, perhaps, in his day, common; but still, I say, it is contrary to analogy, and therefore wrong. Milton, too, has it:
"But in his way lights on the barren plains
Of Sericana, where Chineses[171] drive
With sails and wind their cany waggons light."
--Paradise Lost, B. iii, l. 437.
OBS. 4.--The Numeral Adjectives are of three kinds, namely, cardinal, ordinal, and multiplicative: each kind running on in a series indefinitely. Thus:--
1. Cardinal; One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, &c.
2. Ordinal; First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, &c.
3. Multiplicative; Single or alone, double or twofold, triple or threefold, quadruple or fourfold, quintuple or fivefold, sextuple or sixfold, septuple or sevenfold, octuple or eightfold, &c. But high terms of this series are seldom used. All that occur above decuple or tenfold, are written with a hyphen, and are usually of round numbers only; as, thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold.
OBS. 5.--A cardinal numeral denotes the whole number, but the corresponding ordinal denotes only the last one of that number, or, at the beginning of a series, the first of several or many. Thus: "One denotes simply the number one, without any regard to more; but first has respect to more, and so denotes only the first one of a greater number; and two means the number two completely; but second, the last one of two: and so of all the rest."--Burn's Gram., p. 54. A cardinal number answers to the question, "How many?" An ordinal number answers to the question, "Which one?" or, "What one?" All the ordinal numbers, except first, second, third, and the compounds of these, as twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, are formed directly from the cardinal numbers by means of the termination th. And as the primitives, in this case, are many of them either compound words, or phrases consisting of several words, it is to be observed, that the addition is made to the last term only. That is, of every compound ordinal number, the last term only is ordinal in form. Thus we say, forty-ninth, and not fortieth-ninth; nor could the meaning of the phrase, four hundred and fiftieth, be expressed by saying, fourth hundredth and fiftieth; for this, if it means any thing, speaks of three different numbers.
OBS. 6.--Some of the numerals are often used as nouns; and, as such, are regularly declined: as, Ones, twoes, threes, fours, fives, &c. So, Fifths, sixths, sevenths, eighths, ninths, tenths, &c. "The seventy's translation."--Wilson's Hebrew Gram., p. 32. "I will not do it for forty's sake."--Gen., xviii, 29. "I will not destroy it for twenty's sake."--Ib., ver. 31. "For ten's sake."--Ib., ver. 32. "They sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties."--Mark, vi, 40. "There are millions of truths that a man is not concerned to know."--Locke. With the compound numerals, such a construction is less common; yet the denominator of a fraction may be a number of this sort: as, seven twenty-fifths. And here it may be observed, that, in stead of the ancient phraseology, as in 1 Chron., xxiv, 17th, "The one and twentieth to Jachin, the two and twentieth to Gamul, the three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and twentieth to Maaziah," we now generally say, the
